If gay marriage is cool, why not polygamy?

The_Minister

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7953270.stm (there's a video too)

...
....
Up to 40,000 people in Utah live in polygamous families and it is a way of life that they insist is based on religious belief.

The campaign is called Principle Voices and one of the organisers was Anne Wilde, now a widow after a 33-year marriage. In her basement she keeps religious books that she used to publish with her husband.


Anne Wilde talks about her late husband and his other wives
"This was our best selling one," she said, pulling out a slim paperback called Jesus was Married.

"This is Martha and Mary," explained Anne pointing to a picture at the front. "And then, of course, there was Mary Magdelene. You see, Jesus said follow me. He didn't say follow me in all things except marriage."

I had met Anne the evening before her big campaigning day and she was worried as to how many would turn up for fear of being identified for future prosecution. But she need not have worried.

Walking across the snow in brilliant sunshine, dozens and dozens of people living in polygamous families arrived at the legislative building.

Nestled in a snow-capped valley, Salt Lake City is the historic capital of the Mormon church. But in 1890, the mainstream church outlawed polygamy.

Those piling into a conference room to hear from the state's politicians were from a breakaway group that had refused to opt for monogamy.

"I see myself as a free man in a free society," said one father, who came with his two daughters, both aged 12.

On the podium was Republican politician Ric Cantrel who had a surprising message for people seen to be openly breaking the law.

"Your patriotism is unquestionable," he said, "and your faith inspiring. "You have no hesitation to put God's law above the law of the state with a propensity toward civil disobedience and I find that very American."

....
....

Read the whole article, this is only a short excerpt.


I understand that there are huge logistical problems involved (try rewriting succession law to cater for multiple spouses:D), but it seems illogical to me, that if the gender balance of marriage can be rewritten, then the numerical aspect cannot be changed.
"Plural Marriage" (LOL at the PCness) has a long history behind it, and has existed (both polyandry and polygyny) in many cultures over the centuries.

Thoughts?

PK2008

One wife's nagging is enough for any man

liah

Depends on your version of polygamy, I guess.

Personally I have no problem with polygamy provided it keeps human rights in mind (as in, both sexes have the opportunity to practise).

Think swingers pretty much have the right idea about the topic.

tony1kenobi

2 wives at work while 1 stays home to service me....and the rest of the time I hang out with the kids playing games and watching telly....

.....fcuking sign me up......I'll be gay all over this.

Seth Brundle

how many mothers in law does one need?

My name is URL

Polygamy is born out of the notion that a man that's able to provide for his young is allowed to have more variation in his offsprings genes. The idea is stupid because it's supposed to be about genetics and yet in any country where this goes on, only the man's genetics are taken into account. Which defeats it's own purpose.

aoibhebree

Each to their own, tbh. It only gets complicated when kids are involved, and personally I think everyone - gay, straight, polygamists, etc - should be assessed thoroughly before they're allowed become parents*.


*Obviously I'm aware that this would be totally unenforceable!!

tony1kenobi

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Polygamy is born out of the notion that a man that's able to provide for his young is allowed to have more variation in his offsprings genes. The idea is stupid because it's supposed to be about genetics and yet in any country where this goes on, only the man's genetics are taken into account. Which defeats it's own purpose.

Ah come on.....forget the facts.....think about the six tits.....don't ruin this for me.

the_syco

So, what? If he cheats, the wife gets half his house, but if he marries the mistress, he's not really cheating, is he?

Also, due to the PC'ness, it'll have to be legal for a woman to have many husbands...

PK2008

the_syco wrote: »

So, what? If he cheats, the wife gets half his house, but if he marries the mistress, he's not really cheating, is he?

Also, due to the PC'ness, it'll have to be legal for a woman to have many husbands...

Hehe... you said pc'ness

rainbow kirby

Meh, each to their own.

stovelid

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Polygamy is born out of the notion that a man that's able to provide for his young is allowed to have more variation in his offsprings genes. The idea is stupid because it's supposed to be about genetics and yet in any country where this goes on, only the man's genetics are taken into account. Which defeats it's own purpose.

Nothing to do with able to get up on x amount of mots of course.

KeyLimePie

I believe in monogomy pure and simple

Slidey

PK2008 wrote: »

One wife's nagging is enough for any man

Marry sisters, solves that problem.

Find twins who are orphans... Jackpot!

jaffa20

What has gay marriage got to do with Polygamy?

Borneo Fnctn

Next thing we'll have gangbang weddings. This is not on.

tony1kenobi

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I believe in monogomy pure and simple

I am an oak man myself.

RKDus

jackpalance wrote: »

Next thing we'll have gangbang weddings.

Where are you having them? Sign me up!

spoonbadger

tony1kenobi wrote: »

I am an oak man myself.

Well hey man,whatever gives ya wood :pac:.

Capt'n Midnight

what about the lost boys ?
in Tibet they used to become monks
in times past they would become soldiers and get killed off in wars
or foreign adventures of conquest and colonization
or send them off to India to die like flies while rich men back home would marry several times since their young wives died so often in childbirth


Supposedly more men are gay than women and women have a longer life expectancy but I've never noticed a surplus of women. If there is a surplus of single available women where are they ???



http://www.reason.com/news/show/117323.html

"Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages — money, skills, education — will marry, but men without such advantages — poor, unskilled, illiterate — will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population."
...
Hudson and den Boer note that "bare branches are more likely than other males to turn to vice and violence." To get ahead, they "may turn to appropriation of resources, using force if necessary." Such men are ripe for recruitment by gangs, and in groups they "exhibit even more exaggerated risky and violent behavior." The result is "a significant increase in societal, and possibly intersocietal, violence."
...
Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market. The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives — numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while. In particular communities — inner cities, for example — polygamy could take a toll much more quickly. Even a handful of "Solomons" (high-status men taking multiple wives) could create brigades of new recruits for street gangs and drug lords, the last thing those communities need.
...
The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy's inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

on an evolutionary level this generates organisms where the male is larger and more aggressive and fights for dominance



In cases of polyandry though the ability to determine who the father is would be interesting


btw: anyone got stats on the % of children that aren't fathered by husbands as it might give some indication of how unworkable this is

994

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what about the lost boys ?
in Tibet they used to become monks
in times past they would become soldiers and get killed off in wars


Supposedly more men are gay than women and women have a longer life expectancy but I've never noticed a surplus of women. If there is a surplus of single available women where are they ???

106 boys are born for every 100 girls, because a son is slightly more advantageous for the mother as he can protect her and his sisters.

Zillah

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I believe in monogomy pure and simple

Well then you're welcome to have a monogamous relationship but don't be a fascist and expect everyone else to go by your opinion

Capt'n Midnight

994 wrote: »

106 boys are born for every 100 girls, because a son is slightly more advantageous for the mother as he can protect her and his sisters.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0110384.html
it's more or less even in the 25-40 year old group

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/06/22/why-are-more-boys-than-girls-being-born.htm

By the age of 36, women outnumber men.
...
in the two decades between 1970 and 1990, the proportion of male births went down an entire 1 percent worldwide.

Jesus Wept

Each wife more unattractive than the last, and all space cadets, that seems the way anytime I've seen any of these families featured.

Black Swan

The Mormons only practiced one form when it was legal, polygyny (one man having more than one wife), although some still do today (marry in the Church, then divorce with a Justice of the Peace, which the Church does not recognize... then the "divorced" women stay under the same roof as if nothing had happened).

Why would several women want to share only one man? He's lucky to satisfy one, much less many, ha!

Now polyandry (one woman having more than one husband)? Naaaaaaa, one's enough trouble!;)

Trouser_Press

The_Minister wrote: »

it seems illogical to me, that if the gender balance of marriage can be rewritten, then the numerical aspect cannot be changed.

This is a joke, right? Or are you seriously equating the two?

Black Swan

The-Rigger wrote: »

Each wife more unattractive than the last, and all space cadets, that seems the way anytime I've seen any of these families featured.

But Rig, do you want them to be smart or attractive, when all you want them to do is run to and from the frig with cool ones and sandwiches while you watch telly?

dsmythy

Sure why not combine the two while you're at it. We'll have men marrying numerous men all over the place.

Jesus Wept

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

But Rig, do you want them to be smart or attractive, when all you want them to do is run to and from the frig with cool ones and sandwiches while you watch telly?

True, one space-cadet would be plenty.

Tech3

Marriage means nothing to most people these days. Ah sure why not divorce someone after a few day even though I said I would be with them for the rest of my life. The fundamentals of marriage have gone out the door.

Tar.Aldarion

PK2008 wrote: »

One wife's nagging is enough for any man

Please don't tell the missus I thanked your post.

/run